G.R. No. 114734 - Imbuido vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner, Vivian Y. Imbuido, was employed by International Information Services, Inc. as a data encoder from August 26, 1988 until October 18, 1991.
During her employment, she entered into thirteen (13) successive three‑month contracts which, aside from basic compensation and duration, contained provisions stating that:

The employment was for a specific project or job, terminating automatically upon project completion, client withdrawal, or dismissal for just causes.
The petitioner was required to abide by the company’s rules and regulations.
Overtime work might be demanded to meet the project’s scheduled delivery dates.

In September 1991, petitioner and twelve (12) other employees allegedly agreed to file a petition for a certification election for the rank-and‑file employees.
On October 8, 1991, Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas (LAKAS) filed the petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

On October 18, 1991, petitioner received a termination letter from the company’s Administrative Officer, citing “low volume of work” as the reason.
Subsequently, on May 25, 1992, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), also seeking service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay.
In her position paper, petitioner contended that the true motive behind her dismissal was her participation in the petition for certification election, thus characterizing the dismissal as tainted by unfair labor practices.
The private respondent maintained that petitioner was terminated in accordance with the fixed project employment terms and that there was no union activity at the time of her dismissal.

On August 25, 1992, Labor Arbiter Raul T. Aquino ruled in petitioner’s favor, finding her to be a regular employee despite her series of fixed-term contracts.
The arbiter held that the nature of her work—data encoding, which was integral to the employer’s business—converted her status into that of a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
He further denounced the series of contracts as an evasion of labor law mandates and ordered:

Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and privileges.
Payment of full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement (subject to deductions based on work suspension principles).
Award of service incentive leave pay computed on the basis of accrued service.
Rejection of the claim for 13th month pay due to insufficient substantiation.

On September 27, 1993, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s decision, dismissing the illegal dismissal claim on the ground that petitioner was a “project employee” whose tenure was fixed by the specific project period.
The NLRC ruled that as a project employee, petitioner was not entitled to tenurial security beyond the completion of the project, even though she performed functions necessary to the company’s regular business.
An Order dated January 11, 1994, denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, thereby affirming the NLRC’s findings.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging the NLRC’s reversal, alleging:

Grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the labor arbiter’s findings and in producing factual determinations contrary to the evidence.
Misclassification of her status as a “project employee” rather than a “regular employee.”
That her termination was tainted with unfair labor practice.
Abuse of discretion in remanding the award for service incentive leave pay to further arbitration.

Whether the petitioner should be classified as a project employee or as a regular employee considering her continuous re-hiring and the vital nature of the work performed.
Whether the existence of successive fixed-term contracts is sufficient to deprive her of the status of regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code.

Whether termination on the grounds of “low volume of work” constitutes a just or authorized cause for dismissal under the Labor Code.
Whether the completion of the project, as claimed by the employer, is a valid cause for terminating her employment.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to full backwages from the date of dismissal until actual reinstatement.
Whether the computation for service incentive leave pay, covering the period from 1989 until her reinstatement, is proper and justified.

Whether the termination was motivated by the petitioner’s activity related to the certification election, thereby constituting an unfair labor practice.

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the labor arbiter’s findings and in remanding some claims for further arbitration.